31 December, 2012

Leaderless and unorganised groups of young men and women have been
demonstrating demanding women's security and just punishment to
perpetrators of the Delhi gang-rape.

They have defied ban orders and braved repressive police action. The
death of the rape victim Saturday appears to have strengthened their
resolve. But punishment in criminal cases, just or otherwise, comes only
at the end of trial and hearing at three levels, which, with the best
will to fast-track the process, will take time.
Ensuring security of women calls for toning up of the police
machinery and reforming society -- tasks that will take even more time.
The protesters cannot be hanging out at Jantar Mantar and in parks in
other cities while these processes go on.

Knowing this, the government is resorting to time-tested dilatory
measures like constitution of judicial commissions and promises of
action. While the protests have been ignited by one incident which
received considerable mass media attention, what has also brought young
people into the campaign is the feeling that the political system is not
responsive to the issue.

Their exasperation is evident from the way they are steering clear of all political elements.

On their part, the ruling parties and the opposition are viewing with
deep suspicion the protest movement run by those who are not under the
control of any party. Their misgivings are shared by middle class
intellectuals who fear the movement may lead to anarchy.

Figures show a crime against women is reported every two minutes.
When we take into account the fact that many women do not file
complaints and even when complaints are filed, police may not register
them, the actual crime rate must be higher.

The nation's concern over the issue, which the protesters are
articulating, is therefore justified. The protesters cannot be blamed
for their distrust of the political class.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh did not speak out on the issue for
days. Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde opened his mouth mainly to defend
police action against the demonstrators.

Bharatiya Janata Party leader Sushama Swaraj, who demanded the death
penalty for rapists, had been silent on the rape of women during the
Gujarat riots.

Communist Party of India-Marxist leader Brinda Karat, who paid visits
to India Gate, was an accessory to her party's decision to settle
sexual harassment charges against two of its leaders in Kerala and
shield them against prosecution.

Jaya Bachchan, who broke into tears at a Mumbai protest rally, is an
MP of the Samajwadi Party that has fielded men facing rape charges in
elections.

The Bahujan Samaj Party and the Trinamool Congress, two parties
controlled by women leaders, too, have put up rape case accused as
candidates.

How can such leaders be relied upon to address the issue sincerely?

Former Indian Army chief, Gen V.K. Singh was among those who publicly
associated themselves with the protest. While serving as army chief, he
showed no sign of concern for rape victims. Army personnel in Kashmir
attracted rape charges in his time.

He had no word of sympathy for Irom Sharmila of Manipur, who is on an
epic fast seeking lifting of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which
provides immunity to servicemen involved in rape cases.
While the record of the politicians and the former officials is not
inspiring, protesters must understand we are running a democratic system
and such a system cannot be run without political parties. But they are
entitled to demand that the politicians remain accountable to the
people.

Sonia Gandhi, chairperson of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA), said on Saturday: "We have heard you".

If she has heard the protesters' voice, why is there no action?

The constitution envisages a government responsible to the Lok Sabha,
the lower house of parliament. That body owes its special status to the
fact that it is directly elected by the people, who, going by the
preamble, are both makers and keepers of the constitution.

In a democratic dispensation, when things go wrong, someone must
assume responsibility. Half-a-century ago, Lal Bahadur Shastri assumed
moral responsibility for a rail accident and resigned as railway
minister.
When a sex crime in the capital awakens the nation's conscience to
the vulnerability of women, must not someone assume moral responsibility
and bow out?

If no one does so voluntarily, does not the UPA chairperson have a
duty to fix responsibility and call for the resignation of the person
concerned?

Two persons present themselves as likely candidates: the prime
minister, who remained silent when he should be have spoken out and
acted; and the home minister, whose words only added insult to injury.

The exit of either gentleman will not bring the government down since
it is open to the Congress and the UPA to find a replacement from their
own ranks.

28 December, 2012

The following is a press statement issued by the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons, The Bund, Amira Kadal, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir:

On 30th August 2012, APDP submitted 507 cases of enforced
disappearances from Baramulla and Bandipora districts to the State Human
Rights Commission (SHRC) for investigations into the causes and
circumstances which led to their disappearances. APDP had urged SHRC to
investigate whether these people are dead or alive and if they have been
killed, then it should be ascertained whether these people have been
buried in unmarked graves and mass graves in entire Jammu and Kashmir
through DNA tests.

Initially the state government and SHRC showed reluctance to admit these
507 cases of enforced disappearances, but finally on 24th
December 2012 the case has been admitted and the notices have been issued
to the Director General of Jammu and Kashmir Police and the Deputy
Commissioners of Baramulla and Bandipora districts to furnish their
reports regarding the disappearance of these 507 persons. The copy of the
order is annexed.

Earlier on 10th December 2011, APDP has submitted 132 cases of
enforced disappearances from Banihal to the SHRC. APDP had urged SHRC to
investigate the causes and circumstances which led to the disappearance
of these 132 persons from Banihal. Also APDP had expressed that the
family members of these victims were willing to cooperate for DNA
tests.

Given the fact that so far 639 cases of enforced disappearances have been
submitted to the SHRC for investigations and for possible DNA tests,
Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah has chosen to lie and confuse the issue of
enforced disappearances and unmarked graves. The Chief Minister recently
said to some newspapers that so far no one has approached the government
for carrying out DNA tests. He also mentioned that the S.P. of the Human
Rights Cell of the CID has been made nodal officer for the DNA tests. The
government vide its Action Taken Report submitted to the SHRC has laid
out the procedure for the families to approach this S.P of CID for DNA
tests. The same was also shamelessly reiterated by the Chief Minister
recently when he said that family members of the disappeared while
approaching the nodal officer for the DNA tests should identify the
graveyard and the particular grave in which they suspect that their loved
ones have been buried. This is a bizarre statement. How would the family
members of the disappeared know whether their relatives are dead or alive
and also if they are dead, where they have been buried?

We believe that the DNA tests of all the unmarked graves should be
carried out first and only after that the family members should be asked
to give DNA samples.

This policy of the present government suggests that Chief Minister is not
just callous but also cruel and crude in his understanding about the
issue of enforced disappearances in Jammu and Kashmir. Omar Abdullahâ€™s
statement is not a surprise for the family members of the disappeared.
National Conference has a legacy of siding with tyranny and injustice.
The ex-Chief Minister, Farooq Abdullah on 13th January 2001
stated that, â€œMy orders to the police are wherever you find a militant,
dispatch him as I do not want to fill jailsâ€ , which only further
empowered the armed forces to continue their policy of extra-judicial
killings.

We urge government to end this policy of lies and obduracy and adopt the
principles of justice and fairness, while dealing with issue of enforced
disappearances and unmarked graves in Jammu and Kashmir.

25 December, 2012

On Sunday, the second day of the Delhi protests, the television channels
started moderating their coverage. This happened after the Information and
Broadcasting Ministry issued a so-called Advisory to the channels.

While the channels toned down coverage the government wasn’t quite satisfied.
On Monday channel personnel faced police fury.

Later the channels' OB vans were barred from the vicinity of India Gate.

Here is the text of the Ministry’s Advisory to News and Current Affairs
channels, as reproduced by the media blog Churumuri:

To
All News and Current Affairs satellite Television Channels

From
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
“A” Wing Shastri Bhawan

New Delhi-110001
23rd December, 2012

ADVISORY

Whereas a number of private satellite news TV channels have been showing
programmes covering round-the-clock direct telecast of the events relating to
public demonstration being held in New Delhi in the wake of the unfortunate and
tragic incident of gang rape of a young girl on 16th December, 2012 in a moving
bus.
The channels have been covering the agitation and the efforts of
the law enforcing authorities to maintain law & order, as well as the
commentaries of the channel reporters to portray the incidents from their own
perspectives.

Whereas this incident and the public outcry in its aftermath are a
very sensitive issue and any inappropriate media reportage thereon is likely to
vitiate the law and order situation.

It has been observed that some private satellite news TV channels in
their 24X7 coverage have not been showing due responsibility and maturity in
telecasting the events relating the said demonstration and such a telecast is
likely to cause deterioration in the law & order situation, hindering the
efforts of the law enforcing authorities. (emphasis added)

Whereas Rule 6(1)(e) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994,
which contains the Programme Code to be strictly adhered to by all private
satellite television channels, provides that no programme should be
carried in the cable service which is likely to encourage or incite violence or
contains anything against maintenance of law and order or which promotes
anti-national attitude.

Now, therefore, all private satellite television channels are advised to
scrupulously follow the Progarmme Code laid down in the Cable Television
Networks Rules, 1994 and to ensure to telecast the matter in a responsible
manner with due care, maturity and restraint.

Any violation of the Programme Code will invite such action as
provided for in the Cable Television(Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Rules
framed thereunder as well as the terms & conditions stipulated in Uplinking
& Downlinking Guidelines.

India has been in a state of rage
for more than a week over the gangrape of a young woman in a New Delhi
bus she had boarded with a male friend. In the national capital, young
people have been staging demonstrations daily and the government is
clearly worried.

Gruesome acts of sex crime often provoke angry
responses and political parties use the opportunity to their advantage.
However, the sense of outrage soon dies down and all is forgotten —
until another case brings the issue to the fore again.

The wave
of protests in the nerve centre of the central government, which has
produced echoes across the country, marks a determined effort by youths
to turn the outrage into action. Their demand is that the government
must ensure that women are safe in the capital and elsewhere in the
country. Repeated use of batons, water cannons and teargas has not
deterred them.

The gangrape victim, a 23-year old paramedical
student, who was brutalised and thrown out of the bus with her friend.
is now in hospital, fighting for survival. Her six tormentors are in
custody.

Sex crimes are universal but their incidence varies from
country to country. A recent multi-country World Health Organisation
study said 15% to 71% women aged 15 to 49 years had reported physical or
sexual violence by someone close to them at some point in their lives.
Such violence not only violates human rights but also poses major health
problems, it added.

India’s record in this area is dismal. A
global survey by the Thomson Reuters Trust found it the fourth most
dangerous place for women, after Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of
Congo and Pakistan.

Crimes against women are on the rise in the
country. Last year 228,650 cases were reported, as against 215,585 in
2010. The offences included murder, dowry deaths, rape and molestation.
In 22,549 out of the 24,206 rape cases, the offenders were persons known
to the victims such as relatives, including parents and grandparents,
neighbours, friends or colleagues. Of the victims, 10.6% were aged below
14 years, 19.0% between 14 and 18 years, 54.7% between 18 and 30 years,
15.0% between 30 and 50 years and 0.6% above 50 years.

Many of
the crimes against women are attributable to feudal influence. Rape of
Dalit and Adivasi women and so-called “honour killing” of girls who
marry outside the caste fall in this category.

The urban sex
crime rate is above the national average, which suggests women are more
unsafe in the modern cities than in backward villages. Delhi accounted
for 13.3% of sex crimes reported from 53 cities, and was way above
Bangalore which was in second place with 5.6%. A close look at the
statistics reveals that cities where hoodlums enjoying political
patronage abound are the most violence-prone.

The society, which
is highly paternalistic, nurtures a traditional bias in favour of the
male child, which manifests itself in the high incidence of female
foeticide. Police officials often refuse to entertain complaints of sex
abuse. When a complaint is registered, investigation may be shoddy. Even
judges of the highest court sometimes betray lack of sensitivity in
handling such cases.

Instead of improving, things are getting
worse. Conviction rate in sex crimes has dropped from 43% to just above
20% in the last 40 years. The youth fury in Delhi is a sign of
exasperation with the failure of the legal and political systems.

Some
political leaders have sought to placate the public with calls for the
death penalty and castration of sex offenders. Their words lack
sincerity. Their own parties have MPs and MLAs involved in cases of
sexual offence. As many as 34 candidates who contested the last
parliamentary elections were facing charges of crime against women. They
included nominees of West Bengal’s Trinamool Congress and Tamil Nadu’s
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, both which are headed by
feisty women.

The Kerala government last week set up a
panel headed by a senior woman police officer to supervise investigation
of crimes against women. Commendable as the step is, it is worthwhile
to remember that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Senior
leaders of both ruling and opposition parties in the state who figured
in cases of sex offences in the past have got away without even facing
trial.--Gulf Today, Sharjah, December 25, 2012.

18 December, 2012

Encouraged by recent government
measures indicating a new resolve to forge ahead with reforms, which
were held back under political compulsion, foreign analysts and
investment brokers last week held out before India visions of a new
phase of rapid economic growth.

In a recorded conversation with
JP Morgan Chase International chairman Jacob A Frenkel, Stanford
University economics professor Nicholas Bloom said India has the
potential to grow at least as fast as China if it sorted out domestic
problems like labour regulations, the permits system, restrictions on
trade and foreign direct investment (FDI) and “a horribly ineffective
court system.”

Arjun Singh, Senior Economist at the India office
of a firm which claims to be the world’s leading source of business
information, said in a newspaper interview that the country could not
leverage its large fundamental growth drivers because of lack of
reforms. He expected a turnaround in the economy by the middle of 2013
if the government carried forward the reform process.

While
India’s demographics give the best potential GDP growth rate, inability
to introduce effective policy change is a persistent source of
disappointment, said Golden Sachs Asset Management Chairman Jim O’Neill
in a note distributed to the media. Based on signs of change in the
government’s approach, he hinted at the country doing better than
expected in the coming year. The US National Intelligence Council’s
forecast, released on December 10, was music to Indian ears. In the
once-in-four-years Global Trends report, it averred that by 2030 Asia,
mainly India, would straddle international commerce and dominate the
world economy, as was the case before 1500 CE.

With the Chinese
economy decelerating and the West in decline, India will have the chance
to power the world after 2015, it said. Although China is ahead at
present, India will be able to close the gap and forge ahead of it.
While China’s working population will peak to 994 million by 2016 and
decline to 961 million by 2030, India’s will continue to grow until
around 2050. Also, India will have more middle-class consumers than
China.

The reports about the bright future that awaits India are
apparently intended to goad the government into going ahead with
reforms.

World Bank Chief Economist Kaushik Basu, who is a
former chief economic adviser to the Indian government, chipped in with
an exhortation to keep up the blitz of reforms as it will help the
economy, which slipped this year to the lowest growth rate in a decade,
to return to the nine per cent growth recorded earlier.

More
reform measures will certainly please foreign and domestic investors.
But the poor will have to pay a heavy price for it. Not surprisingly,
this fact does not figure in the experts’ forecasts.

After years
of hesitation, the government recently allowed FDI in multi-brand retail
trade and raised the FDI cap on insurance and aviation sectors,
overlooking the objections of some of the parties supporting the ruling
coalition. When the opposition challenged the retail FDI decision in
parliament it had a tough time cajoling these parties to vote with it or
stay out.

Last week the government decided on two more measures
to address foreign investors’ complaints of bottlenecks. It set up a
Cabinet Committee to grant swift clearance to projects with investment
of over Rs10 billion. It also approved the draft of a new land law to
facilitate quick acquisition of land for industries.

Besides
promising farmers higher prices for their land, the new law will enable
companies to buy contiguous property if 80 per cent of the owners agree
to sell. In the case of projects involving public-private partnership,
the assent of 70 per cent owners will suffice.

With farmers
refusing to give up their lands and tribals resisting eviction from
their traditional homelands, several big projects have run into
difficulties. Since the land issue involves a large number of small and
marginal farmers, many political parties will find it difficult to go
along with the government.

In the circumstances, the
bill to amend the land law is bound to meet with stiff opposition in
parliament. This will call for more arm-twisting than on the FDI issue.
The parties will have to weigh how their stand will affect their
prospects in the parliamentary elections due in 2014. If the government
is defeated on a crucial legislative measure like this it will have no
option but to bow out.--Gulf Today, Sharjah, December 18, 2012.

11 December, 2012

The Leveson report on the culture,
practices and ethics of the press in the United Kingdom provoked a
discussion in India but with media professionals divided and the
government indecisive there has been no progress towards ensuring media
accountability.

The Indian media presents a complex picture. The
print media has a regulatory mechanism that is ineffectual. The
electronic media has a self-regulatory mechanism which is even more
ineffectual. The provisions of the Information Technology Act put the
new media at the mercy of the police.

The constitution is silent
on freedom of the press but the state acknowledges it inheres in the
freedom of speech and expression, which is guaranteed. In the early
years of freedom, newspapers exercised excessive restraint under editors
who had experience of war-time censorship and were alive to the grave
internal situation caused by post-partition violence.

The Press
Council, set up in compliance with the recommendations of a commission
in the 1950s, is headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and includes
representatives of newspaper owners as well as journalists, Members of
Parliament and eminent persons drawn from different fields. It has no
power to punish the wrongdoer. All it can do is to ask the erring
newspaper to publish its adverse finding.

During the emergency,
when censorship was in force, the government scrapped the council but
the next government revived it. The experience of that period brought
home to the journalists and the public the importance of press freedom.
Their combined opposition forced Rajiv Gandhi to abandon a move to bring
in a law to regulate the press.

The Press Council can claim
credit for drawing up a code of ethics but over the years it lost such
moral authority as it possessed. It remained a mute witness when the
Times of India group entered into “private treaty” relationships with
corporate entities. It investigated the “paid news” phenomenon but could
take no action against the erring newspapers.

Television
channels did not exist when the Press Council came into existence and
are outside its purview. Five years ago, as the public reacted angrily
to a channel’s fake sting operation against a school, the government
considered legislation to bring the electronic media within its ambit or
set up a separate regulatory mechanism for it. Channel owners
immediately announced a code of ethics and set up their own regulatory
mechanism styled as News Broadcasting Standards Authority, headed by a
retired chief justice of India. The NBSA has eight members, four drawn
from within the electronic media and four from outside.

There
are a few hundred news channels in the country but only 40 run by
companies owned by the association which set up NBSA come under its
jurisdiction. In one of the few cases of successful intervention, NBSA
imposed a fine of Rs100,000 on a channel holding it guilty of intruding
into the privacy of individuals in a report on homosexuality in
Hyderabad.

In a complaint to the police, Navin Jindal, a
Congress MP and industrialist, recently alleged that the Zee TV network
attempted to extort Rs1 billion from his companies over a five-year
period by way of advertisement charges. The network counter-charged that
Jindal had offered it advertisement contracts to stop airing adverse
reports.The police arrested two senior editors of the network. At the
time of writing, several weeks later, they are still in jail without
bail. The police summoned the owner of the channel and his son for
interrogation.

A secretly taped video released by Jindal clearly
shows that the channel editors compromised their journalistic position
by entering into negotiations for a long-term advertisement contract. At
the same time the editors’ prolonged detention strengthens the
network’s charge of political motivation.

The basic issue is
one of the media’s accountability to the society it seeks to serve.
While the law can step in to deal with criminal conduct, there is a vast
area beyond the reach of the law where accepted professional values
must be the determining factor. It is here that the regulatory mechanism
must play its part.

The concept of press freedom
demands the government’s exclusion from the process of regulation.
Justice Markandeya Katju, the Chairman of the Press Council, advocates
the creation of a statutorily backed professional body for mediapersons
similar to those already in existence for doctors and advocates. It is a pity the media fights shy of this eminently practical solution. --Gulf Today, Sharjah, Devember 12, 2012..

04 December, 2012

India, saddled with an outdated administrative apparatus
controlled largely by semi-feudal political leaders at the lower
levels, is all set to experiment with a computer-driven scheme for
direct delivery of subsidies in cash to entitled citizens.

The
government says the scheme, which will come into operation in the New
Year, is a game changer. However, many political parties, for their own
reasons, do not want any change in the rules of the game.

With
large sections of the population too poor to fend for themselves, the
government has instituted various welfare measures for them and
sanctioned subsidies on items such as food, fuel and fertilisers. The
measures, conceived and funded mainly by the Centre, are implemented by
the state governments.

Taking into account the burden the
globalisation process has cast on the poor, many new schemes have been
taken up in the past two decades, pushing up the cost of subsidies from
about Rs80 billion in 1994 to an estimated Rs3,200 billion next year.
All the money does not reach the intended beneficiaries.

In the
absence of prompt scrutiny of accounts, there is no way to ascertain the
extent of leakage. It is well known that in Kerala, now one of the
richest states, few buy grains from the ration shops. The unsold grain
is diverted to rice mills. The shopkeepers and the millers thus become
the actual beneficiaries of the subsidy. A pilot study at Alwar in
Rajasthan showed that more than half the subsidy on kerosene meant for
the poor is appropriated by others. The new scheme envisages payment of
subsidy direct to the beneficiaries through banks, eliminating
intermediaries. They can open bank accounts with the unique
identification numbers allotted to them under the Aadhar project,
managed by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAD).

Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh last week asked Central officials to assist the
states, which hold most of the information relating to beneficiaries of
welfare measures, to digitise the databases and seed them with Aadhar
numbers to ensure smooth flow of cash from January 1. He said direct
transfers, made possible by innovative use of technology and spread of
modern banking across the country, will eliminate wastage, reduce
leakages and benefit the poor.

One reason why opposition parties
dislike the scheme is that they suspect the United Progressive Alliance
government has conceived it with a view to deriving an electoral
dividend. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act of 2005, which
assures employment for a minimum of 100 days in a year to at least one
member of every rural family, is believed to have helped the UPA to earn
a second five-year term in 2009. The opposition fears that direct cash
transfers will do for it in 2014 what NREGA did in 2009.

The
Bharatiya Janata Party has written to the Election Commission alleging
the scheme violates the code of conduct which bars policy announcements
while the poll process is on. The national elections are one-and-a-half
years away but the BJP argues the scheme cannot be launched now as
Assembly elections are under way in some states. The Commission has
sought a response from the government.

The Communist Party of
India and the CPI-Marxist view the scheme as part of a strategy to cut
down subsidies. The CPI says it will hurt the poor, and the CPI-M fears
the Centre will use it to lower subsidies and undermine the public
distribution system.

A fall in government spending can certainly
be expected — not because of cuts in the size of subsidies but because
of the elimination of ineligible persons from the list of beneficiaries.

The Asian Development Bank has endorsed the scheme for direct
payment of subsidy as a step that will plug leakages in welfare
spending, which, it estimates, is about five per cent of India’s GDP. It
says the Philippine government’s scheme of direct cash payments to
mothers with school-going children, introduced three years ago, has
proved cost-effective.

If successful, the cash transfer
scheme will help the poor by freeing them from the clutches of
intermediaries who wield political power at the state and district
levels. If it fails, it will take the Congress and the UPA down with it.
Aware of the risks, the Centre has decided to move cautiously. To begin
with, it proposes to introduce the scheme in selected districts across
the country and to bring under it only pension and scholarship payments,
which can be easily managed. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, December 4, 2012.

02 December, 2012

With
the beatification of Devasahayam Pillai (picture above), whom the Vatican has recognized as a
martyr to the Christian cause, at a function at Nagarkovil in Kanyakumari
district of Tamil Nadu today, there is one more prospective Indian candidate for
sainthood.

Saint
Alphonsa (1910-1946), who was canonized in 2008, is the first Indian saint, and
also the first one belonging to the Syro Malabar Catholic Church, one
of 22 eastern churches “in full communion with Rome”.

The process of declaring a deceased Christian a saint is a long one which usually takes many years. It starts with
a group of people from the candidate’s church and community making a request to
the local bishop. The decision rests with the Pope.

Sister
Alphonsa’s transition to sainthood was one of the fastest. With the
beatification of Devasahayam Pillai (1714-1757) there are now four Indians in
line for possible sainthood, the others being Father Kuriakose Elias Chavara of
Kainakari (1805-1871), who was beatified along with St Alphonsa in 1986, Sister
Euphrasia Eluvathingal (Rosa) of Kattoor (1877- 1952), who was beatified in
2006 and Maria Theresa Chiramel of Puthenchira (1876-1926), who was beatified
in 2000.

The
quest for non-white saints and the elevation of more and more non-white prelates as cardinals
mark a new phase in the evolution of the Catholic Church.

Like
the story of the visit of Thomas the Apostle to Kerala, the story of the
martyrdom of Devasahayam Pillai is riddled with questionable facts.

The
Vatican considers Thomas the patron saint of India, but does not accept the
tradition of the eastern churches, including those in communion with Rome, that
the Apostle reached Kodungallur through the sea route in 52 AD and spread the
gospel. Another tradition has it that St Thomas reached a north Indian kingdon through the land
route.

According
to a 2004 document of the Catholic Bishops Council of India, Devasahayam Pillai
converted to Christianity in 1745 under the influence of Captain Eustachius De
Lannoy, a Dutch naval commander, who was captured by the forces of the Maharaja of
Travancore after defeating the forces of Holland in the Battle of Colachel in 1741.
He was persecuted for embracing Christianity and killed.

Some Hindu
spokesmen like Bharatiya Vichara Kendran director P. Parameswaran and the well-known historian
A. Sreedhara Menon questioned the CBCI report. They pointed out that there was no
evidence of persecution of Christians in Travancore at that time, and said
the charge against Devasahayam Pillai was sedition, not conversion. The
CBCI countered this argument with the claim that conversion by those in the
service of the Maharaja was not tolerated.

The
epitaph on De Lannoy’s tomb within the Udayagiri Fort on the
Thiruananthapuram-Nagerkovil highway records that after his capture he had “served Maharaja Marthanda
Varma and Travancore faithfully for three decades”. It is difficult to believe
that the Maharaja who held the Dutchman in such high esteem would have allowed
someone close to him to be persecuted and killed.

According
to a report in Malayala Manorama, there are documents to establish that Devasahayam
Pillai was subjected to severe torture in the Anchuthengu (Anjengo) Fort. That
fort was built by the British and under their control at the relevant time. It
is most unlikely that the British would have tormented a local man for
converting to Christianity.

We strongly condemn the attack on Swami Agnivesh by communal
forces in a meeting organized by Garima Abhiyan in Bhopal. The meeting was
called to make the members of Balmiki community take a pledge that they will
not be carrying the night soil (human excreta) on their heads. Swamiji was
attacked when he came forward to touch the feet of an old lady from Balmiki
Community. The gesture was to recognize the dignity of all the humans being
equal. In a way it was to challenge the prevalent practices which derive their origin
from caste system. The government has already come with legislation banning
this dehumanizing practice, which takes away the dignity of section of society.

This attack was done by communal forces, led by VHP. This again
shows the real agenda of VHP associates, the one of preserving the caste
hierarchy and keeping the large section of dalits in their present subhuman
conditions. VHP and affiliates, under the garb of protecting Hindu religion want
to maintain the graded hierarchy of caste and so this attack on Swamiji, as he
staunchly opposed this practice.

It also shows the failure of BJP led state Government’s to contain
the communal forces. In MP communalism is being promoted through various
schemes introduced by government. We condemn the act of VHP led forces and
demand that the culprits should be punished as per the process of law. We
express our solidarity with Swami Agnivesh’s continuing campaign to get dignity
to dalits and Balmiki community in particular and to abolish the practice of
carrying night soil on head.

We also urge upon the Indian government to ensure that the
carrying of night soil should be eliminated all through the country.

27 November, 2012

When the Indian government pushed
the Information Technology Act through Parliament in 2000 its main aim
was to regulate e-commerce. During the Mumbai terror strike of 2008, the
attackers continuously received encrypted messages from their handlers
in Pakistan. This prompted it to amend the law to assume more powers. In
the emotionally surcharged atmosphere, Parliament approved the loosely
worded amendments without even a debate.

The law covers not only
public postings on social networks but also private email messages
which may cause “annoyance or inconvenience.” Section 66A, incorporated
in 2008, makes it a crime to communicate digitally “any information that
is grossly offensive or has menacing character.” Anyone found guilty
can be fined and jailed for up to three years.

Section 69 allows
the government to intercept, monitor or decrypt information conveyed
through digital media and Section 69A empowers it to direct the networks
to block access to any information through any computer.

Cyber
law experts say these provisions bear the influence of two British laws,
the Malicious Communications Act of 1988 and the Communications Act of
2003. The colonial hangover which still afflicts the state 65 years
after Independence and the police’s propensity to act in the interests
of their political masters render such provisions far more dangerous in
India than in Britain.

The police often tag provisions of the
Indian Penal Code, drawn up by the British rulers in the 19th century,
to cyber law cases. Although IPC has undergone a few revisions since the
country gained freedom, it retains its character as an instrument of
oppression. State governments routinely invoke its provisions regarding
sedition against critics of the government. Cyber giants like Google and
Facebook have blocked access from India to hundreds of web pages,
responding to requests from the government which alleged they contain
objectionable material. While it claims the material violates IPC
provisions, most of it is critical of prominent politicians rather than
of the central and state governments.

When the Communist Party of
India (Marxist) was in power in Kerala, the police lured back a young
immigrant from a Gulf State who had forwarded to friends a photograph of
a mansion which was wrongfully presented as state party secretary
Pinarayi Vijayan’s house. Puducherry police recently arrested a small
businessman for alleging in a tweet that Union Finance Minister P
Chidambaram’s son Karti has amassed more money than Congress President
Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law Robert Vadra, whom anti-corruption campaigner
Arvind Kejriwal has accused of profiting from dubious land deals.

The
Maharashtra police hauled up Aseem Trivedi, who posted at his website
his own cartoons critical of the state of the nation. The sedition
charge against him was dropped following a nationwide uproar, but he
still faces charges under the IT Act. The West Bengal government
arrested a Jadavpur University professor for circulating material
lampooning Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

Early this month
Information Technology Minister Kapil Sibal had brushed aside criticism
of the IT Act saying the fault lay with law enforcers, not the law.
Offences under Sec 66A are bailable and cops had jailed the accused due
to ignorance, he said. “Just because some people act improperly the law
cannot be scrapped,” he added.

Netizens reacted angrily to the
arrest of Shaheen Dhada, who wrote in Facebook that Mumbai had shut down
on the death of Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray out of fear, not
respect, and her friend Renu Srinivasan, who “liked” the comment. They
considered Shaheen’s assessment fair and contrasted it with the news
channels’ fawning coverage of the funeral of Thackeray, whom a judicial
commission had found guilty of inciting mob violence. Sibal conceded the
arrests were illegal.

The public outcry encouraged two Air India
employees, who were held in custody for 12 days in May for allegedly
making insulting comments about politicians, to come out with the story
of their humiliation.

Sibal has convened a meeting on
Thursday to review the working of the IT Act. But the fight for cyber
freedom may well be long drawn out. While civil society groups want the
government to amend the law to protect privacy and legitimate criticism,
Sibal appears inclined to stop with writing to the state governments to
ensure that cases are initiated only after clearance by designated
officers of the rank of Inspector General of Police. This may not
improve the situation. Several of the reported cases of misuse of the
law were in fact initiated with the knowledge and concurrence of
high-ranking officers.--Gulf Today, Sharjah, November 27, 2012.

23 November, 2012

The secretive and stealthy hanging of Ajmal Kasab in
Pune’s Yerwada Prison yesterday, 21st November, 2012, brings to an
end the legal process involved in trying Kasab for the brutal assault by
trained terrorists from across the border on Mumbai, the commercial capital of
India which left 166 persons dead.

The Mumbai carnage of November 2008, more popularly
abbreviated to a single term `26/11,’ constitutes one of the most heinous and
deliberate attempts in recent years to cause mass mayhem and terror in India.
Kasab was the only member of the terrorist team sent from Pakistan apprehended
alive; he was caught on film diabolically using his modern automatic weapon in
a cold blooded fashion, killing numerous people. The hanging, and the trial and
legal proceedings which preceded it, admittedly complied with
existing laws which permit death penalty, and cannot be faulted as such.
While it may be argued, as many do that the hanging will help in an
`emotional closure’ to the families of victims of 26/11, there are others who
point out that other key issues still remain to be addressed. Families of
victims in specific, as also other concerned citizens, have pointed out that
Kasab was only a foot soldier and not the mastermind, who still remain at
large.

We cannot also lose sight of the fact the
reality that the backdrop of the 26/11 incidents is also the festering
and unresolved internal conflict inside Kashmir, which provides an easy emotive
tool for demagogues to indoctrinate and turn youth to become cold blooded
`jihadi’ killers. To them, the execution will not be a
deterrence.

The extensive legal process ending with the
hanging of Kasab is pointed out as a triumph of the of `rule of law process’ in
India. In the same breath this is also contrasted to the lack of such situation
in neighbouring Pakistan. This discourse is however very worrisome; it
borders on `triumphalism’ on the one hand, and on the other, it amounts to an
attempt to `avenge’ or seek `vengeance’, and `eye for an eye and tooth for a
tooth’ mentality, which worldview has been rejected as dangerous amongst a
majority of 110 countries worldwide which have prohibited death penalty in
their countries.

Such triumphalist discourse is also worrying for it
hides behind emotive terminology very harsh truths of failure and miscarriage
of justice in other incidents of mass killings that have occurred in India. The
`cry for justice’ still remains a silent pouring of helpless anger in the
hearts and souls of thousands of families of victims in incidents like
planned and cold blooded slaughter of over 3000 Sikhs during the anti-Sikh
riots of 1984, the massacre of hundreds of Muslims in the wake of the Babri
Masjid demolition in 1992-93 (which ironically occurred in Mumbai also), the
2002 post-Godhra anti-Muslim carnage in Gujarat which saw over 2,000 Muslims
killed and thousands more rendered homeless and more recently in Kokrajhar in
Assam. A stark reality is the cynical manipulation and subversion of police investigation
by ruling political parties and the executive to help masterminds and
perpetrators escape the clutches of the law.

In the surcharged emotional atmosphere in the wake of
Kasab’s hanging, even raising questions about the usefulness of hanging
Kasab is considered to be `traitorous’, unpatriotic and anti-national. We
in the PUCL nevertheless feel that this is a moment in our nation’s history
when we need to pause and ponder, and reflect on the values that we, as a
nation, should uphold, particularly relating to crime and punishment, justice
and equity. We need to be conscious of the fact that a nation consumed by
outrage and filled with a sense of retribution easily confuses “punishment and
revenge, justice and vendetta”. We, as a nation, need to begin a dispassionate
public debate on the death penalty without judgmental, indignant, righteous or
moralist overtones.

PUCL has always taken a principled stand against the
death sentence as being anti-thetical to the land of ahimsa and non-violence,
as constituting an arbitrary, capricious and unreliable punishment and that at
the end of the day, the type of sentence that will be awarded depends very much
on many factors, apart from the case itself. PUCL and Amnesty International
have published a major study of the entire body of judgments of the
Supreme Court of India on death penalty between 1950-2008 which unambiguously
shows that there is so much arbitrariness in the application of `rarest of
rare’ doctrine in death penalty cases that in the ultimate analysis, death
sentence constitutes a `lethal lottery’.

It may not be out of context to highlight that just
two days before Kasab was hanged, on 19th November, 2012, the
Supreme Court of India pointed out to the fact that in practice, the
application of `rarest of rare cases’ doctrine to award death penalty was
seriously arbitrary warranting a rethink of the death penalty in India.

It is also
well recognised now that there can never ever be a guarantee against legal
mistakes and improper application of legal principles while awarding death
sentences. Very importantly, the Supreme Court of India in the case of `Santosh
Kr. Bariar v. State of Maharashtra’, (2009) has explicitly stated that 6
previous judgments of the Supreme Court between 1996 to 2009 in which death
sentences were confirmed on 13 people, were found to be `per
incuriam’ meaning thereby, were rendered in ignorance of law. The
Supreme court held that the reasoning for confirming death sentences in theses
cases conflicted with the 5 judge constitutional bench decision in Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), which upheld the constitutionality of the
death sentence in India and laid down the guidelines to be followed before
awarding death sentence by any court in India.

It should
be pointed out that of the 13 convicts awarded death sentence based on this per
incuriam reasoning, 2 persons, Ravji @ Ramchandra was hanged on 4.5.1996
and Surja Ram in 5.4.1997. The fate of the others is pending decision on their
mercy petitions. In the meantime a group of 7 - 8 former High Court judges have
written to the President of India pointing out to the legal infirmity in the
award of death sentences to these convicts and seeking rectification of
judicial mistake by commuting their death sentences to life imprisonment. A
very troubling question remains: how do we render justice to men who were
hanged based on a wrong application of the law?

It is for
such reasons, amongst others, that PUCL has long argued that it is extremely
unsafe and uncivilised to retain death penalty in our statutes.

It will be
useful to refer to the stand on death penalty taken by 3 of India’s foremost
leaders of the independence struggle.

Mahatma Gandhi said,

“I do regard death sentence as contrary to
ahimsa. Only he takes it who gives it. All punishment is repugnant to ahimsa.
Under a State governed according to the principles of ahimsa, therefore, a
murderer would be sent to a penitentiary and there be given a chance of
reforming himself. All crime is a form of disease and should be treated as
such”.

Speaking
before the Constituent Assembly of India on 3rd June, 1949, the
architect of India’s constitution, Dr. Ambedkar, pointed out,

“... I would much rather
support the abolition of death sentence itself. That I think is the proper
course to follow, so that it will end this controversy. After all this country
by and large believes in the principles of non-violence, It has been its
ancient tradition, and although people may not be following in actual practice,
they certainly adhere to the principle of non-violence as a moral mandate which
they ought to observe as dar as they possibly can and I think that having
regard to this fact, the proper thing for this county to do is to abolish the
death sentence altogether”.

Jayaprakash
Narayan wrote more poignantly that,

“To
my mind, it is ultimately a question for the respect for life and human
approach to those who commit grievous hurt to others. Death sentence is no
remedy for such crimes. A more humane and constructive remedy is to
remove the culprit concerned from the normal milieu and treat him as a mental
case ... They may be kept in prison houses till they die a natural death. This
may cast a heavier economic burden on society than hanging. But I have
no doubt that a humane treatment even of a murderer will enhance man’s dignity
and make society more humane”. (emphasis ours).

PUCL calls
upon all Indians to use the present situation as a moment of national
reflection, a period of serious dialogue and discussion on the values and
ethics which we as a nation of Buddha and Ashoka, who epitomised humane
governance, dharma and ahimsa, should accept and follow. The best tribute we
can pay to the 166 persons who lost their lives due to the 26/11 Mumbai carnage
is to rebuild the nation in a way that equity and justice, dharma and ahimsa
prevails; in which there is no soil for discrimination and prejudice, and in
which all Indians irrespective of caste, community, creed, gender or any other
diversity, can live peacefully and with dignity.

We firmly believe that mercy and compassion are key values of
a humane society, which are also recognised in the Indian Constitution. We also
hold that abolishing death penalty is not a sign of weakness. Rather it is a
stand which arises from a sense of moral authority. It is when law in tempered
with mercy that true justice is done. Bereft of mercy our society would be
impoverished and inhuman; mercy is quintessentially a human quality, not found
elsewhere in the natural world. Excluding a fellow human being from the
entitlement to mercy will make our society more blood thirsty, unforgiving and
violent. We owe a duty to leave a better and less vengeful world for our
children by curbing our instinct for retribution. That way we become a more
humane and compassionate society. Recalling Rabindranath
Tagore’s vision in the `Gitanjali’, let us re-make India into a `haven of
peace’ in which future generations of Indians will rejoice and flourish.